Citation Nr: A25088694 Decision Date: 10/15/25 Archive Date: 10/15/25 DOCKET NO. 231017-387168 DATE: October 15, 2025 ORDER Readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and unspecified anxiety disorder with depressed mood, is warranted. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and unspecified anxiety disorder with depressed mood, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A July 2021 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Veterans Benefits Administration, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), denied a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD based on lack of a diagnosis that complied with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) diagnostic criteria and lack of a verified stressor. 2. A December 2021 AOJ rating decision declined to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD, as new and relevant evidence had not been received by VA. 3. Evidence received by VA since the December 2021 rating decision declined to readjudicate a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD is new and relevant to the matters at issue therein. 4. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the appellant's acquired psychiatric disorder began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for readjudicating a claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The appellant served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 2003 to September 2009. Procedural History This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2023 AOJ rating decision, which declined to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The appellant's VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement (NOD)), was timely received by VA in October 2023. The appellant elected the Board's Evidence Submission docket. Applicable Evidentiary Window As the appellant selected the Evidence Submission Docket, the Board may only consider the evidence of record before the AOJ at the time of its decision on the issues on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the appellant with the NOD (VA Form 10182) or within 90 days following receipt of the NOD. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300(a), 303. If additional evidence was submitted between the dates of the AOJ decision and VA's receipt of the NOD, the Board will not consider it unless it is resubmitted during the 90 days following VA's receipt of the NOD. If the appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, the appellant may file a supplemental claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a supplemental claim are included with this decision. See also Cook v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 175 (2023). Recharacterization of Issue on Appeal With respect to the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD, in order to afford the appellant as much opportunity as possible to substantiate his claim, the claim has been recharacterized as one for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, and unspecified anxiety disorder with depressed mood, as noted on the title page of this decision. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (the scope of the claim includes any disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record.). 1. Readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Applicable Law Once VA denies claims for service connection, the claims can be readjudicated only if a claimant submits new and relevant evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 5108(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. "Relevant evidence" is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500 (a)(1). In determining whether new and relevant evidence is presented or secured, VA will consider any VA treatment records reasonably identified by the claimant and any evidence received by VA after VA issued notice of a decision on the claim and while the evidentiary record was closed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. Accordingly, to readjudicate these claims, new evidence pertaining to the matters at issue in 2022 must be presented or secured. Analysis A December 2021 rating decision declined to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD on the grounds that the appellant did not submit relevant evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD or a link between his diagnosed unspecified anxiety disorder and service. The appellant filed an October 2022 VA Form 20-0995 (Supplemental Claim), claiming entitlement to service connection for PTSD. In January 2023, the AOJ issued the supplemental claim rating decision on appeal denying readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD finding that new and relevant evidence had not been received. New and relevant evidence was received with respect to the claim. In October 2022, in conjunction with the supplemental claim application, the appellant submitted a private examination report and medical opinion indicating that he had a diagnosis of PTSD that was related to service. See Private Review of PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), and Medical Opinion, September 6, 2022. This evidence is new, as it was not part of the actual record at the time of the relevant prior rating decision, and it is relevant, as it tends to prove a matter at issue. Specifically, this opinion indicated that the appellant had a diagnosis of PTSD that was related to service, which was not previously considered. As new and relevant evidence has been presented or secured for the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, the criteria for readjudicating the claim are met and, to this extent, the appellant's claim is granted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103A(h), 5108(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501. 2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder The appellant contends he has an acquired psychiatric disorder that is related to service. See VA Form 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim, May 12, 2021. Applicable Law Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish entitlement to service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal connection between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases, which are listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) may be presumed to have been incurred during service if manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. With chronic disease shown as such in service (or within the presumptive period under § 3.307) so as to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). For the showing of chronic disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. Id. However, if chronicity in service is not established or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned, a showing of continuity of symptoms after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). A claimant "can benefit from continuity of symptomatology to establish service connection in the ultimate sense, but only if [the] chronic disease is one listed in § 3.309(a)." Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection may nonetheless be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider all the relevant medical evidence as well as lay evidence. Furthermore, the Board is required to assess the competency and credibility of the relevant evidence, and to consider its probative weight. When considering whether lay evidence is competent, the Board must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the appellant's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Finally, when determining whether service connection is warranted, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in approximate balance. Id. Analysis The Board concludes that, while the appellant has a diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Here, the December 2021, and January 2023 supplemental claim rating decisions favorably found that the appellant has a current diagnosis of PTSD, and unspecified anxiety disorder with depressed mood. Favorable findings made by the AOJ are generally binding on the Board, unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c); 20.801(a). Such evidence is not present in this case. Thus, the first Shedden element, current disability, has been satisfied. See Shedden, supra. The second Shedden element, in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, has not been met. Here, service treatment records are silent as to complaints, treatments, or diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder during service. On service separation the appellant denied any psychiatric symptoms. See Report of Medical History, July 29, 2009. It is noted that the appellant has recited, in great detail, suffering a near-drowning episode while on active duty. See Appellant Statement, May 12, 2021. The appellant's private examiner also indicated that based on the appellant's contentions and evaluations his PTSD was related to this experience. See Private Review of PTSD DBQ, and Medical Opinion, September 6, 2022. However, review of service treatment records fails to reveal any mention of the event or any related treatment for the same. Additionally, this event has not been verified by the AOJ, and this event was not mentioned by the appellant until his medical treatment in 2020. See VA Mental Health Telephone Encounter Note, September 8, 2020; See VA Addendum Opinion, June 22, 2021. Further, the private examiner's opinion is not probative because the other evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that an inservice event occurred, and his findings are largely based on the appellant's lay assertions without corroboration from the medial evidence of record. Thus, the opinion is afforded limited probative value. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 460-61 (1993); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). While the appellant is competent to report that an in-service near drowning event occurred, these reports lack credibility due to internal inconsistency and inconsistency with other evidence in the record. Here, there is no evidence other than the appellant's lay assertions, that corroborates that the event occurred during his service. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). While the appellant believes his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to a near drowning experience during service, the Board reiterates that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that this event occurred. As the weight of the evidence is against a finding of an in-service event, the claim is denied. See Lynch, 21 F.4th 781-82. K.A. KENNERLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. McDuffie, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.